Drawing upon decades of experience, RAND provides research services, systematic analysis, and innovative thinking to a global clientele that includes government agencies, foundations, and private-sector firms.

The Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS.edu) is the largest public policy Ph.D. program in the nation and the only program based at an independent public policy research organization—the RAND Corporation.

Student Spotlight

School Violence

Prevalence, Fears, and Prevention

Jaana Juvonen

School shootings such as the one at Columbine High School in
1999 have left deep scars in our nation. The apparently random nature
of these highly publicized shootings has raised public fears to epidemic
proportions. According to 2001 polls, more than 50 percent of parents
with children in grades K-12[1]
and 75 percent of secondary school students[2]
now think that a school shooting could occur in their community.

Schools are taking a variety of measures to improve school safety. These include the use of metal detectors, the presence of security guards on campus, rules and regulations regarding student conduct and dress, profiling of potentially violent students, anti-bullying instructional programs, and counseling and mediation. Which of these approaches work? Which will reduce the incidence of violence in our schools and alleviate the fears of parents and children? How can school and district administrators choose among the myriad possibilities, and how can they know where to allocate precious resources?

RAND examined the literature regarding these programs and found that only a handful have been evaluated, and even fewer have been deemed effective or even promising. The goal of this paper is to describe the options that are currently available for schools. An analysis of the key components of various approaches in terms of their potential positive and negative effects can assist in the selection of policies, programs, and procedures while we wait for evaluations to be conducted.

FACTS ABOUT SCHOOL VIOLENCE

School violence is not confined to urban schools; it is also
prevalent in suburban schools. [3] Violence
is most common in large schools, and middle school students are the
most likely targets of violent behavior. [3]

According to a joint report of the Departments of Education
and Justice, [3] violent crime overall has
declined since the early and mid-1990s. However, this decline is relatively
small. For example, the percentage of students who reported being victims
of crime at school decreased from 10 percent in 1995 to 8 percent in
1999. Whereas the chances of serious violence, such as shootings, are
very low, violence continues to take place in schools. The latest data
available on criminal incidents (school year 1996-1997) reveal that
about half of public middle and high schools reported at least one incident
of physical attacks, fights (without a weapon), theft, larceny, or vandalism.
Also, even in light of the 5 percent decrease in weapon carrying between
1995 and 1999, [3] 7-8 percent of students
in 9th to 12th grade continue to report having been threatened or injured
with a weapon on school property. What is more, official statistics
are often lower than the actual rates of violent behavior because of
biases in reporting. [4] Overall, then,
violence remains a problem in American schools. [5]

During one school year, about half of public middle
and high schools reported at least one incident of physical attacks,
fights (without a weapon), theft, larceny, or vandalism

ELEVATED CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY

In light of these statistics, the concerns and fears of parents
and children appear to be out of proportion to reality. The publicity
that school shootings have received is a likely cause of fear. But there
are other reasons for elevated fears. In addition to their Concerns
about violent behavior, students are fearful of and intimidated by other,
less serious forms of peer hostility. These include physical aggression
such as shoving and pushing, face-to-face verbal harassment, public
humiliation, and rumor mongering. About 20-30 percent of American students
(i.e., over 10 million) repeatedly either engage in or are the targets
of bullying tactics [6] that contribute
to the climate of fear. [7] In fact, youth
ages 8 to 15 rank bullying as more of a problem in their lives than
discrimination, racism, or violence. [8]
And children who view themselves as targets of bullying show high levels
of anxiety and depression that impede their school performance. [9]

Youth ages 8 to 15 rank bullying as more of a problem in their lives than discrimination, racism, or violence.

Bullying and more serious violent behavior are not separate problems.
Childhood bullying predicts person-oriented crime in young adulthood.[10]Thus, bullying is one precursor of more extreme forms
of hostility. In addition, a small but potentially volatile group of youth
not only perceive themselves as the victims of peer taunting and ridicule,
but are also aggressive themselves.[11] Although
more research is needed to identify the conditions under which victims
of bullying are most likely to lash out, it is clear that hostilities
among school children increase the risk for subsequent violence.

WHAT ARE SCHOOLS DOING TO IMPROVE SAFETY?

Faced with intense public pressure, school administrators are taking action and implementing programs designed to curb school violence. These programs include:

Physical surveillance, including weapons deterrence and the presence of security guards or officers on campus

School policies designed to prevent violence by
punishing those who perpetrate violence

Instruction-based programs designed to address the precursors of violence, including bullying

Profiling of potentially violent individuals

Counseling at-risk students

Conflict mediation and resolution.

The sheer numbers of these programs can be daunting; there are over 200 institutional programs alone. And the specific goals and foci of these approaches vary. Some aim to boost physical safety by reducing extreme forms of violence, such as shootings. Others promote a psychologically safe school climate (i.e., one in which students and staff feel protected). Some are proactive in trying to prevent the development of violent behaviors, whereas others are reactive. Certain programs focus on skill building, whereas others rely on the deterrent value of punishment. Some approaches involve the entire school and sometimes even parents or the community at large; others are designed for students identified as "at risk." Finally, certain approaches focus on resolving incidents rather than identifying problem students. Hence, school-based violence prevention efforts are based on drastically different sets of assumptions about what works. Unfortunately, the assumptions are rarely questioned, and these approaches might not work as well as we wish. Each of these approaches is discussed in more detail below.

Physical Surveillance

Among the most common physical surveillance measures currently used in schools are weapons deterrence and the use of campus security and police officers. These strategies are aimed at preventing the most extreme forms of violence.

Weapons deterrence. Although bullying is far more prevalent
than violence that involves weapons, [3]
one primary goal of improved physical surveillance measures is to prevent
youth from bringing weapons to school. Metal detectors and searches
of student lockers and book bags are not uncommon, especially in large
urban middle and high schools. Indeed, fewer weapons are confiscated
with these measures in place[12]
than are confiscated without them, implying that students are bringing
weapons to school less frequently. Whether metal detectors and searches
can prevent a well-planned incident from taking place is less clear.

Weapons deterrence does not address the reasons why students carry guns to school.

Recent reports from administrators suggest that some schools are decreasing their use of metal detectors and searches because they appear to increase students' fears and anxieties. Thus, weapons deterrence may increase physical safety but compromise the psychological safety of students. And it does not address the underlying reasons why students carry weapons to school.

Campus officers. The presence of security guards and officers
employed by the school, district, or local law enforcement on school
grounds is gaining popular support. This is especially true since the
shooting incident at Granite Hills High School near San Diego, California,
where a campus police officer was able to intervene quickly and prevent
further violence. The duties of campus officers vary from patrolling
the school and grounds to assisting school personnel with discipline
issues. In the spring of 2000, President Clinton bolstered the use of
campus officers by providing more than $60 million to support 452 officers
nationwide as part of the Justice Department's COPS in Schools program.
Media reports[13] indicate
that President Bush might triple the amount of federal support for this
program. However, little is known about the long-term or concurrent
effects that the presence of uniformed officers might have on students'
feelings of safety. For example, although the presence of an officer
may provide peace of mind for administrators and parents, we cannot
presume that students view officers as their allies or defenders. The
presence of uniformed officers can, in fact, breed a sense of mistrust
among students and hence adversely affect school climate. Indeed, some
preliminary evidence suggests that physical surveillance methods (metal
detectors, searches, and security guards) can predict increased disorder.[14]

School Policies

A wide variety of school policies related to student conduct and dress code is enforced in schools across the nation. Rules and regulations that directly target violence are zero-tolerance policies inasmuch as a single violation results in punishment, often either suspension or expulsion. Although many of these policies pertain specifically to weapons possession at school, others target drug use or possession. Some districts and schools have adopted anti-bullying zero-tolerance policies, thereby targeting precursors to violence.

Regardless of the specific foci of these zero-tolerance policies,
they involve an explicit statement of consequences (i.e., punishment).
These "get-tough" practices are presumed to send a message to potentially
violent students and decrease school violence. But they may exacerbate
problems, also. Repeated school transfers increase the risk for subsequent
violence.[15] Also, suspensions are relatively
strong predictors of dropping out of school,[16]
which, in turn, is associated with delinquency.[17],[18]
One explanation for the links among suspension, dropping out, and delinquency
is that a student who is not in school has more unstructured time, with
the greater likelihood of contact with deviant peers.[19]
Hence, in some cases, punishment tactics employed by schools with zero-tolerance
policies might result in an increased risk of violence for the individual
student and for society at large.

Get-tough practices are presumed to send a message to potentially
violent students and decrease school violence. But they may
exacerbate problems, also.

Instructional Programs

A program is defined as instructional if it consists of multiple lessons
that are implemented by teachers or other adult staff. These programs
tend to focus on precursors or antecedents of violent behavior[20]
with the presumption that, by targeting behaviors that predict violence
(e.g., bullying and impulsive behavior), more serious manifestations
of aggression will be prevented. [5] Other
programs, such as character education and lessons in social skills,
aim to make individuals more socially competent.[21],[22]

Instructional programs vary in their target audience; some are designed
for all students and the whole "system," whereas others are developed
as special programs for "at-risk" youth. One example of a systemic
program is the Bully/Victim Program, designed originally by Dan Olweus
in Norway.[23] This program was selected
as the only model program for school-based prevention at the secondary
level in the Blueprint Programs by the Center for Prevention of Violence
at the University of Colorado at Boulder, along with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and other institutions in 1996. The program
aims to alter social norms by changing school responses to bullying
incidents. In addition to explicit anti-harassment policies, the program
is designed to improve the social awareness of staff and students. Instructional
materials designed for all students (not only bullies and victims) include
a series of exercises that help students see problems from the perspective
of the victim of bullying and raise consciousness about the role of
bystanders in encouraging the bully. The program provides teacher training
and information for parents about the program.

Instructional programs focus on the precursors of violent
behavior with the presumption
that serious manifestations of aggression
will be prevented.

Numerous instructional violence prevention programs are available for
elementary schools, but only a handful are designed for secondary school
students. The most promising at the secondary school level are targeted
for at-risk youth, typically aggressive students. Most of these programs
(e.g., Positive Adolescent Choices Training, PACT; Responding in Peaceful
and Positive Ways, RIPP; and Adolescent Transitions Program, ATP) involve
adult-led small group sessions on anger management, conflict resolution,
etc. Role-playing and other interactive teaching methods are used. Although
these programs are all curriculum-based, they are often implemented much
like group counseling sessions and only sometimes are they embedded within
the larger context of a school-wide prevention approach. Short-term outcomes
for such programs are promising;[19],[24],[25]
however, there are limited data on their long-term effects. A recent long-term
followup[26] shows that repeated interventions
that include only problem youth can be counter-effective. Grouping high-risk
youth together appears to reinforce negative behavioral patterns in a
form of "deviance training," increasing rather than decreasing the risk
that they will engage in anti-social behavior subsequently.

Systemic anti-bullying programs alter social norms by changing
school responses to bullying incidents and increasing social
awareness.

Profiling of Potentially Violent Youth

One approach that gained support immediately following the highly
publicized school shootings was early identification or profiling of
potentially violent students. This approach is based on the assumption
that we can predict who will become violent. Although a great deal is
known about early warning signs of violent behavior, the truth is that
many students fit these "profiles" and only very few will ever commit
a violent act.[27] Hence, many students
who will never commit violence are labeled as potentially violent. The
label itself can lead to stigmatization and, if linked with a segregated
group intervention, the labeling can also significantly limit the opportunities
of the identified students.

Many students who will never commit violence are labeled
as potentially violent.

Counseling and Mediation

Other violence prevention efforts rely on counseling students with disciplinary problems and mediating in specific incidents of conflict as needed. These are reactive rather than proactive approaches.

The assumption underlying the counseling approach is that students who repeatedly get into trouble need specific attention and services. Counseling often involves parents and teachers. Mediation of conflicts, on the other hand, is incident- rather than person-based: the goal is to negotiate and resolve conflicts in a constructive manner as soon as they happen. Mediation and conflict resolution programs provide opportunities for modeling and rehearsing critical negotiation and resolution tactics.

Various school personnel can be in charge of the counseling and mediation. In some schools, the administrators (e.g., assistant principals) who are in charge of discipline problems handle counseling and mediation too. Some schools have trained school psychologists/counselors or "violence prevention coordinators." The professional qualifications of these personnel vary; there are no uniform educational requirements for school violence prevention coordinators. Yet the qualifications and training of personnel might be critical factors, determining the success or failure of these approaches.

Another approach is peer mediation. Although these programs can be effective
in elementary schools, some evidence indicates that high school mediators
are not well screened.[28]

WHAT ARE THE MOST POPULAR SCHOOL SAFETY MEASURES?

The most recent national data from the 1996-1997 school year includes a short
section on school actions and reactions related to discipline issues.[29]
The survey of 12,340 principals shows that 74 percent of middle schools
and 82 percent of high schools used some form of violence prevention
program (ranging from one-day to long-term programs) in 1996-1997. Of
these, about 90 percent of the schools had zero-tolerance policies for
firearms.

In California, 63 percent of high schools employ at least
one part-time law enforcement officer.

Only 13 percent of public middle schools and 21 percent of high schools
had police or other law enforcement on campus 10-30 or more hours per
week. In all likelihood, these figures have substantially changed since
the 1996-1997 school year. For example, according to a more recent survey,[30]
63 percent of high schools in California employ at least one part-time
law enforcement officer.

FURTHER EVALUATION IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE WHICH APPROACHES WORK

Schools are sincere in their efforts to confront the antecedents of violence and alleviate students' fears, and they have implemented a variety of thoughtful programs. But do these programs work?

At this time, only a handful of violence prevention approaches have been evaluated, and even fewer have been determined to be effective or promising. Proper evaluation research is costly and typically deemed a luxury by funders and program developers. As a result, large amounts of both federal and state monies are spent to support school violence programs with little or no data on their potential effectiveness.

Given the lack of data on program effectiveness, school and district administrators have few guidelines to help them make informed choices among the myriad of alternatives. Instead, they are likely to make decisions based on such factors as the availability of program materials and training, cost, ease of implementation, and public relations issues such as how visible a particular tactic might be. Thus, popular methods such as physical surveillance and zero-tolerance policies regarding guns and violent behavior may be convenient, but they are not necessarily the most effective approaches to prevent the development of violent behavior.

School safety is clearly one of our national priorities. We owe it to our children to make sure that the methods we use to promote school safety will work. We cannot justify large amounts of taxpayer money for programs that feel good or that appear to be working according to the testimonials of a few administrators, teachers, or parents. Instead, rigorous program evaluation studies are needed. With the most promising approaches, longer-term evaluations must also be conducted.

MAKING MEANINGFUL CHOICES

While we are waiting for evaluations to be conducted, decisionmakers can make meaningful choices by matching their goals with the primary goals of the various approaches. School-based violence prevention approaches can address (1) outbursts of violent behavior (e.g., shootings), (2) the precursors of violence (e.g., hostile school climate, bullying), and (3) the fears and anxieties associated with each. However, the methods that address these primary goals can conflict with one another and have unintended effects. For example, the fears and anxieties of students cannot necessarily be reduced if the primary goal is to increase physical safety by means of increased surveillance. Hence, choices need to be made between psychological safety and physical safety; proactive strategies and reactive strategies; targeted and whole school approaches; punitive and instructional methods; and, finally, between incident-based and person-based interventions.

[13] Lichtblau, E., and R. Brownstein. (2001).
"President to Trim Clinton's Community Policing Program; Law: Hiring
Initiative Is Seen as a Key Force in Fighting Crime. School Security
Is at Top of Agenda."
Los Angeles Times, A1.

RAND issue papers explore topics of interest to the policymaking community.
Although issue papers are formally reviewed, authors have substantial
latitude to express provocative views without doing full justice to
other perspectives. The views and conclusions expressed in issue papers
are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of RAND
of its research sponsors.

The work described in this issue paper was completed within RAND Education.
Building on more than 25 years of research and evaluation work, RAND
Education has as its mission the improvement of education policy and
practice in formal and informal settings from early childhood on. A
profile of RAND Education, abstracts of its publications, and ordering
information may be viewed on the World Wide Web (www.rand.org/education/).
To obtain information about RAND studies or to order documents, call
Distribution Services (Telephone: 310-451-7002; FAX: 310-451-6915; or
Internet: order@rand.org). This
research brief is also available in printed
form.

Abstracts of
all RAND documents may be viewed on the web. RAND publications are
distributed to the trade by NBN. RAND® is a registered trademark.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve public policy through
research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect
the opinions or policies of its research sponsors.

Explore

The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.